only right wing or republician views

[TheRealJuliane]

Here’s the most basic difference between the Democrat/Liberal and the Republican/Conservative, forget all the inflammatory rhetoric just above.

Democrats believe that “the government” should help citizens and be involved in just about every aspect of our lives. They believe that some government institution should be in charge of and regulating everything we do from the moment we open our eyes in the morning (what you can eat, wear, wash your body and hair with, the kind of light bulb you can use in your house, how much and what kind of power you use, what car you drive, what is in the gasoline you put in your car, etc. etc. etc.) to the moment we close our eyes at night (what you should eat for dinner, what should be in your pillow, etc. etc. etc.). The federal government especially is relied upon for paternalistic care, from cradle to grave, but state governments are also expected to step in and help the population (local disasters, for example). Democrats are not afraid of government and trust the people who run “the government” to care for them in a way that they approve of. The more government, the better.

I put “the government” into quotes because of course there is no such thing as “the government.” That is a collection of people and the institutions we form, and building a huge federal governmental structure means that we are giving over our rights to other people, who may not have our best outcome in mind.

Republicans (especially those who consider themselves conservative) generally believe that government should be as small as possible, restricted to only those areas that society needs for protection. They believe that less restriction and intrusion means that people will have more freedom to do the right thing, with the help of God. They are very approving of the Bill of Rights and also the Constitution’s limited powers of government. The less government, the better.

Of course there are many other differences, just one is that the Democrat party platform includes both access to abortion and euthanasia. That should be problematic for Catholics, but somehow, 53% of all Catholics voted for current President Barack Hussein Obama, who, as a Senator, voted to deny a baby born alive during an abortion even the most basic medical care.

Here is the link to the Democrat Party platform. This is from 2008 but I don’t think they’ve changed anything.

Democratic Party Platform

 

[JenniferB]

Here’s the most basic difference between the Democrat/Liberal and the Republican/Conservative, forget all the inflammatory rhetoric just above.

Democrats believe that “the government” should help citizens and be involved in just about every aspect of our lives. They believe that some government institution should be in charge of and regulating everything we do from the moment we open our eyes in the morning (what you can eat, wear, wash your body and hair with, the kind of light bulb you can use in your house, how much and what kind of power you use, what car you drive, what is in the gasoline you put in your car, etc. etc. etc.) to the moment we close our eyes at night (what you should eat for dinner, what should be in your pillow, etc. etc. etc.).

Pardon me for saying so, but this seems pretty “inflammatory” to me…

Estes Bob:

Yes, I can understand and agree with that.

However, if abortion was going to be outlawed, it would have already been outlawed by the Republican presidents who presided after it was made law.

I just can’t grasp not voting for someone because of one thing (in my case.) Especially if I agree with their position on lots of other things. I don’t see the abortion law getting changed any time soon, so I choose to focus on issues that have the potential for change.

 

[JenniferB]

With that being said, I fear this post is turning into a “Why my political party is better than yours” game. No fun for anyone.

I highly doubt anyone is going to change their minds about who/what they support, so in an attempt to keep my blood pressure normal, I’m done with this specific thread. Lol

I hope everyone has a wonderful night! Yay for weekends!!

 

[estesbob]

Pardon me for saying so, but this seems pretty “inflammatory” to me…

Estes Bob:

Yes, I can understand and agree with that.

However, if abortion was going to be outlawed, it would have already been outlawed by the Republican presidents who presided after it was made law.

I just can’t grasp not voting for someone because of one thing (in my case.) Especially if I agree with their position on lots of other things. I don’t see the abortion law getting changed any time soon, so I choose to focus on issues that have the potential for change.

iIn the first place every single restriction that been placed on abortion since Roe V Wade was imposed has been done by Republican legislatures and executives. It takes a two third majority have a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe V Wade and there is never been any time in the last 40 years. The Republicans had nearly the power to do this. We would’ve seen Roe V Wade, by the way, overturned in 1990 had not the Democrats blocked the appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. It is probable that the next president will get to replace two liberal justices on the court. . Now I know progressive Catholics will tell us that Republican presidents have not always been successful in appointing pro-life judges to the court but we know for sure a Democrat has never, ever appointed a pro-life judge of the Supreme Court. It is imperative that a pro-life president be in office when these openings occur.

In addition we cannot reduce abortion to simply being another political issue that must be balanced among all other issues. As our Church teaches all rights flow from the right to life. without the right to life. All other rights are meaningless. . . no issue or combination of issues trumps this issue. We are talking about the killing of 1.2 million children a year. . Do you really want to trust someone who believes this remain legal in any kind of public leadership position? Do you really believe that holding such a attitude does not permeate their views on everything else?

 

[estesbob]

With that being said, I fear this post is turning into a “Why my political party is better than yours” game. No fun for anyone.

I highly doubt anyone is going to change their minds about who/what they support, so in an attempt to keep my blood pressure normal, I’m done with this specific thread. Lol

I hope everyone has a wonderful night! Yay for weekends!!

I

It shouldn’t turn into why my political party is better than yours. In a Catholic forum it r should focus on the fact that a Catholic cannot support abortion with their voteregardless of which party the candidate in question happens to belong to. As quite often happens in these threads Catholic Democrats try to derail the thread by making outrageous claims that people are claiming a Catholic has to vote for Republicans. That simply is not true. The problem is the modern Democratic Party has so wedded themselves of the culture of death that is very difficult for a Catholic to find a Democrat candidate to vote for and still be in accordance with the teachings of the church. . However, when the rare Democrat candidate comes along who is pro-life a Catholic can indeed in good conscience vote for them.

 

[silent_celt]

Once again, I feel it necessary to explain my original post and to answer some of the replies I received. Some have said that we should act individually and not as a society. I believe that it is true that we have to accept God and Jesus’s teaching individually, but what we do with them, whether it be individually or collectively, I do not think matters. I think just as individuals can be judged, whole societies can be judged. I will say, look at the sin of Adam and how we all inheirit a share in this stain, even though we are separated by time and distance. As Jesus fed the five thousand, he asked for those who had some or extra to be collected and given to him. He then blessed it, gave thanks, and used it to feed all. He did not ask who could or could not afford it, he did not judge whether people should be responsible for feeding themselves or fending for themselves, he only acted in a way to make an example of his life for man kind and for all of us. So yes, we should act individually, but I still say that acting collectively is not wrong. Some take offense to the government being involved. Here again I say, how interesting it is that the right wing will socialize war, such as, as a young man I was required by law to sign up at my local draft board and subject to draft without anyone asking me whether I thought this war was morally acceptable or not. Also, I find it interesting how the wealthy, those with power, and political status, the very same people who led us down a bad path economically, have turned to the government to bail them out at the cost of billions and billions to all citizens regardless of their views or responsibility for this mess. So again, my position is that yes, the right wing is morally correct on many issues, but the left wing, is also morally correct on many issues. And to do God’s work completely as taught to us by Jesus, we should not fence ourselves off into one or another political camp. It is government that we hope at this time will put an end to abortion, God willing. I believe it was Pope Paul VI, when addressing the United Nations, who said “the rich and powerful of the world must never think that they are giving totally of themselves when giving to the poor. They are merely returning that which was meant for or should be that of the poor anyway.” I appreciate the efforts and thoughts that many have you put into answering my original post and I thank you for putting up with my poor spelling, punctuation, grammar, and syntax. I ask that you pray for me and for all. God Bless. Silent Celt.

 

[mary_bobo]

Pardon me for saying so, but this seems pretty “inflammatory” to me…

Estes Bob:

Yes, I can understand and agree with that.

However, if abortion was going to be outlawed, it would have already been outlawed by the Republican presidents who presided after it was made law.

I just can’t grasp not voting for someone because of one thing (in my case.) Especially if I agree with their position on lots of other things. I don’t see the abortion law getting changed any time soon, so I choose to focus on issues that have the potential for change.

Presidents have no power to overturn the rulings of the Supreme Court. At this stage of the game, the right case will have to be brought before the Court before changes are made. Or the Congress, not the president, could make a law restricting some sbortions. Having a Republican majority in only one brance of the Congress is not enough to change in view of the Democrats platform. It is not just one issue that Catholics should vote against a Dem for president. There are FIVE non-negotiables for Catholics and I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t want to face my final judgment with any of those on my conscience.

 

[estesbob]

Once again, I feel it necessary to explain my original post and to answer some of the replies I received. Some have said that we should act individually and not as a society. I believe that it is true that we have to accept God and Jesus’s teaching individually, but what we do with them, whether it be individually or collectively, I do not think matters. I think just as individuals can be judged, whole societies can be judged. I will say, look at the sin of Adam and how we all inheirit a share in this stain, even though we are separated by time and distance. As Jesus fed the five thousand, he asked for those who had some or extra to be collected and given to him. He then blessed it, gave thanks, and used it to feed all. He did not ask who could or could not afford it, he did not judge whether people should be responsible for feeding themselves or fending for themselves, he only acted in a way to make an example of his life for man kind and for all of us. So yes, we should act individually, but I still say that acting collectively is not wrong. Some take offense to the government being involved. Here again I say, how interesting it is that the right wing will socialize war, such as, as a young man I was required by law to sign up at my local draft board and subject to draft without anyone asking me whether I thought this war was morally acceptable or not. Also, I find it interesting how the wealthy, those with power, and political status, the very same people who led us down a bad path economically, have turned to the government to bail them out at the cost of billions and billions to all citizens regardless of their views or responsibility for this mess. So again, my position is that yes, the right wing is morally correct on many issues, but the left wing, is also morally correct on many issues. And to do God’s work completely as taught to us by Jesus, we should not fence ourselves off into one or another political camp. It is government that we hope at this time will put an end to abortion, God willing. I believe it was Pope Paul VI, when addressing the United Nations, who said “the rich and powerful of the world must never think that they are giving totally of themselves when giving to the poor. They are merely returning that which was meant for or should be that of the poor anyway.” I appreciate the efforts and thoughts that many have you put into answering my original post and I thank you for putting up with my poor spelling, punctuation, grammar, and syntax. I ask that you pray for me and for all. God Bless. Silent Celt.

the problem is you seem to be operating on the assumption that Republicans do not care about poor and care only about the rich. but we are seen as valid political differences on on how to best minister to the poor. Tthe Church neither endorses nor opposes either party’s approach to this issue. . You cannot, however, try to elevate political differences on dealing with the poor and needy to the same level as supporting unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

Well, I style myself as a Independent Conservative, but I support many things that would be considered Progressive or Liberal such as the Dream Act giving amnesty to illegal immigrants working to become legal, SOME of Obamacare(it is a monster few people know about), and some form of social welfare. Now, on the other hand, I think a wall should go on the southern border, Obamacare needs to be broken down and alot of it needs to be repealed, and the massive entitlement system we have needs to be trimmed and reformed. In the end, I think it is pointless to think along such partisan lines, because both parties have things wrong.

 

[estesbob]

Well, I style myself as a Independent Conservative, but I support many things that would be considered Progressive or Liberal such as the Dream Act giving amnesty to illegal immigrants working to become legal, SOME of Obamacare(it is a monster few people know about), and some form of social welfare. Now, on the other hand, I think a wall should go on the southern border, Obamacare needs to be broken down and alot of it needs to be repealed, and the massive entitlement system we have needs to be trimmed and reformed. In the end, I think it is pointless to think along such partisan lines, because both parties have things wrong.

The problem, and in order to support the so-called progressive ideas. One may agree with. one must vote for somebody who also supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. . It is not worth the death of one single child to bring about the passage of the dream act or any other piece of liberal legislation.

 

[lutherlic]

Where are the studies that show conservatives give more than liberals? I take great offense to that. I’m a proud liberal and donate alot of my time and money to helping both humans and animals in need.

From George Will’s Conservatives More Liberal Givers:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

There is a lot more. Check Google for instance.

 

[JenniferB]

From George Will’s Conservatives More Liberal Givers:

There is a lot more. Check Google for instance.

Yes, thank you for those links to Fox news reports. They’re the “fair and unbiased” ones right???

Giving to churches counts as “charitable” giving in this country. Common congregational practice is to give a tithe of the congregation’s income directly to the poor. A lot of congregations are not in the business of providing food, shelter, medical care, etc. to people who need such things. Usually congregations will either band together for this type of thing or send their money to parachurch organizations, meaning soup kitchens, homeless shelters, half way houses, etc. We certainly do that at my church.

So, because it is more likely that if you don’t subscribe to religion, you have left leaning views, then of course your charity will not go to churches and thus will not be seens in studies like these. Likey, the numbers will be skewed in favor of the conservatives who do. attend church and tithe regularly.

I also found this interestting:

"We must also remember that Brooks (in reference to your article) is tracking charitable giving. This helps his cause, since one of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is their relative willingness to use governmental programs to help society. This is shown by the universal healthcare plans already put in place by Massachussetts, Oregon and San Francisco, and Schwarzenegger’s proposal for a statewide plan in California. Of course Medicaid is a liberal program, as are breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, WIC, and the multitude of other programs that had conservative opposition at their beginning and suffer continual attacks. on their existence. These programs are usually funded better in “blue” states than in “red” states -for example, the complete breakdown of the social safety net in Texas is well documented.

Then there is the troubling fact that red states are federal tax donors, while blue states are federal tax recipients. Some of this is offset by the larger number of military installations in the Western red states. For example, New Mexico is chock-full of land given over to one or another branch of the military, NASA and various other. governmental organizations. However, we must not discount how Medicare and Social Security, those great liberal programs, figure into these numbers. Also, when state programs are subsidized by federal dollars, the money is coming from liberals in the blue states. "

 

[JenniferB]

Well, I style myself as a Independent Conservative, but I support many things that would be considered Progressive or Liberal such as the Dream Act giving amnesty to illegal immigrants working to become legal, SOME of Obamacare(it is a monster few people know about), and some form of social welfare. Now, on the other hand, I think a wall should go on the southern border, Obamacare needs to be broken down and alot of it needs to be repealed, and the massive entitlement system we have needs to be trimmed and reformed. In the end, I think it is pointless to think along such partisan lines, because both parties have things wrong.

I whole heartedly agree! Maybe I should be Independent , too, as I agree with the left concerning social justice/welfare, tolerance, and environmental issues and I agree with the right concerning moral issues.

I just feel like because I don’t see an end to abortion any time soon, I’d rather my vote go for something that I can possibly see changes in.

And, Lutherlic, I apologize for the snide Fox comment. That was a cheap shot on my part and does not belong in a civil discourse on politics. So I sincerely apologize, friend.

 

[Carlan]

With that being said, I fear this post is turning into a “Why my political party is better than yours” game. No fun for anyone.

I highly doubt anyone is going to change their minds about who/what they support, so in an attempt to keep my blood pressure normal, I’m done with this specific thread. Lol

I hope everyone has a wonderful night! Yay for weekends!!

Yes, no fun, they can and do get downright hateful, both sides. I find they seem to bring out the worst in us.
In defense of my own political right though,i wish to post what i have posted in the past and will continue to post whenever I feel the need.

I AM A DEMOCRAT WHO IS FOR LIFE!

I believe the Democratic Party has a proper life ethic toward legislating to protect the powerless. However ,their position on abortion is wrong.

I pray for pro-life Dems to come forward and fight for movements to end
Abortion, to end the death penalty, domestic violence, racism, and poverty.

The Democratic Party has always championed for the most vulnerable in our
Country- Children , the elderly, the poor, the sick, and disabled.

Republicans , for the most part, claim to be pro-life and yet rarely do you hear them, passionately, cry out for the poor and the deprived, for the working class(labor), for control of hand guns and other weapons used to kill. Or for their politicians to fight for national health care for all our citizens.
Everything good and moral can be done if all would only agree to work together for it.

Peace to all , Carlan

 

[estesbob]

Yes, no fun, they can and do get downright hateful, both sides. I find they seem to bring out the worst in us.
In defense of my own political right though,i wish to post what i have posted in the past and will continue to post whenever I feel the need.

I AM A DEMOCRAT WHO IS FOR LIFE!

I believe the Democratic Party has a proper life ethic toward legislating to protect the powerless. However ,their position on abortion is wrong.

I pray for pro-life Dems to come forward and fight for movements to end
Abortion, to end the death penalty, domestic violence, racism, and poverty.

The Democratic Party has always championed for the most vulnerable in our
Country- Children , the elderly, the poor, the sick, and disabled.

Republicans , for the most part, claim to be pro-life and yet rarely do you hear them, passionately, cry out for the poor and the deprived, for the working class(labor), for control of hand guns and other weapons used to kill. Or for their politicians to fight for national health care for all our citizens.
Everything good and moral can be done if all would only agree to work together for it.

Peace to all , Carlan

A person who believes it is proper for a woman to kill her child is unfit to lead at any level of the government. The idea that other than their support of abortion the Democrat party is just fine is utter nonsense. . The culture of death has so thoroughly permeated the Democrat party that I have little hope that they will return to the party of my parents and grandparents, a party I left four years ago as I could no longer reconcile my faith with their policies.

Republicans are far more concerned about taking care of the poor and needy than the Democrats are-. In fact the Republicans approach it with the novel idea, and this is anathema to the Left ,that the best way to care for the poor and needy is policies that result in them no longer being poor and needy Given the utter failure of the Democrat policies in this area for the last 50 years one wonders why people still claim they really care about the poor and deprived.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, thank you for those links to Fox news reports. They’re the “fair and unbiased” ones right???

Neither of the links provided were to Fox news.

Is your bias showing?

 

[silent_celt]

I would agree that a person or a society who tolerate abortion must be taken to task.It is the ultiment act of selfishment that one can conceive of ,and I must take some belame for not doing much about it other than prayer and voting I am way to passive with this and many other issues. I will call my state and national reps and senators I will activly work for what I believe as a Catholic,how ever this is not the only issue to work on. If we all act individualy to solve our problems in society we will never get anything done. recently in the town I live in a proposal to connect a highway ramp was discussed ,well I tell you no agreement could be reached so now instead of a 10 minute ride to get to hospitial we still must go the old way which my take 30 to 25 minutes.Now I would like this ramp I will call reps and town officials how ever if we in town had talked about this earlier as a community I believe that we could have made a agreement to satify most.I guess that what I am selling is that If we all act together we can accomplish more than as Individual how ever this does not mean we should not also act individualy.Yes some times we must put aside our one Idealogy but not abandon it if we are to get any progress on issues.I think that I have been hearing what some belive is a American value of indivigualism the problem I believe is that this pre assume that the poor or those with out wealth or social status ore automaticaly failures because they must be lazy or have not tried, Yes thier are those type of people but their are probly just as many who have never asked for a hand who have worked hard for years and through no fault of their own illness injury or being laid off you know having their job shipped over sea,s for what is sometimes unnecessary reasons .Because some of you have sighted a study about who gives more I will say so what remember the story of the widows mite.In our capitialist system the better you get the more you pay steak vs hamburger sitting behind home plate vs the outfield 50 yardline vs the end zone a house on the water vs several streets back.the more you get the better you get the more you pay .Some make more money because they work harder for it some because they are educated well and some because they only had the the best inside connections.Still why is it that in this capitalist system some find it hard to make those with better positions in America pay more when it sceems that that is what it is all about when I order that steak instead of liver the restuarnt owner does not care I can not say look I have worked harder than that guy over their he only lives on money he did not labor for. this is to say yes we have imperfections in our system this does not mean that we should not try to fix or make them better. God made man, man made the systems we live under so I guess we will always have problems but if we all truly try to live our religion and put aside political retoric we will make progress.

 

[GWright]

Hi Silent Celt,

(apologies if anyone has raised these points already, I have not read the full thread)

I understand the issue you raise, that you feel Catholicism is being associated with only one side of the political spectrum.

The reason for this is: as our western societies become ever more liberal - liberalism is a self-perpetuating cycle, and, once started, it is very difficult to arrest - left wing issues become increasingly less socially contentious, and right wing issues ever more socially contentious.

To use your own examples: no-one would ever argue that feeding the hungry / helping the poor is wrong. But plenty of people will argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion. And so naturally the media go for the more contentious story, which is invariably the “right wing” views.

The natural result of this is that non-Catholics never hear of anything they might have in common with Catholics, (e.g. a desire for social justice or charitable works), and only hear of things where Catholicism and secular society are at loggerheads (e.g. abortion). This portrays Catholicism as being an isolated right wing set of views, which is deeply unfair.

Of course, Catholicism is neither right nor left wing, but simply “Catholicism”. The media, and secular people, tend to view everything in terms of the political right and left wings. It is how they relate to, and pigeon-hole, people and organisations. But Catholicism transcends such petty secular descriptions. Recently, someone said to me that they felt my views were a “strange mix of the left and the right”. I said they were not a strange mix, but rather they were ‘Catholic views’

Cheers.

 

[silent_celt]

Dear GWright I must say thanks for posting a reply I can agree with perhaps 75 % of your view.I just find it strange that so many people are owned by one party or the other when as you say Catholicism is neither,I am just comcerned that we dont let our beautiful and blessed religion become a mouth piece for just one side . God bless

 

[estesbob]

Dear GWright I must say thanks for posting a reply I can agree with perhaps 75 % of your view.I just find it strange that so many people are owned by one party or the other when as you say Catholicism is neither,I am just comcerned that we dont let our beautiful and blessed religion become a mouth piece for just one side . God bless

it is not a matter of people being owned by one party. It is a matter of one party has so firmly embraced the culture of death that it is nearly impossible for a Catholic to find a Democrat candidate that they can illicitly quote for.